Senator Bacik speaking on a Motion for Seanad Reform

Motion:

Senator Ivana Bacik: I am delighted to second this important motion on Seanad reform and to support Senator O'Toole. It is an excellent motion. Like Senator O'Toole, I have supported calls for Seanad reform even before my election to the Seanad for the first time in 2007. When we had a debate on Seanad reform, prompted, I believe, by a Government motion in November 2007, I spoke in support of that shortly after my election to this House for the first time. However, I believe this motion is more elegantly worded. It is important to note that it welcomes in particular that the indirect method of election by local authority members should remain a core part of a new approach to elections to the Seanad as envisaged by the all-party report on Seanad reform.

It also states the belief that “every qualified citizen should be entitled to participate in Seanad General Elections”. It concludes with the need to include all the third level institutions and to create a universal franchise. Those are two very important principles to take forward while we reflect on the all-party report on Seanad reform of former Senator, Deputy Mary O'Rourke.

Before addressing the subject of Seanad reform, like Senator O'Toole I would like to say something about the nature of the Seanad. Some criticisms have been expressed in recent weeks, some by very long-standing Senators, of the procedures and the existence of the Seanad. Given that I am a relatively new Senator of less than 18 months, I would like to say something of my experience of the procedures. Coming in as a new Senator, some of these procedures are undoubtedly cumbersome. I am sure other new colleagues will share my view of that. At times there may appear to be considerably more heat than light generated in debates, yet I believe the Seanad fulfils a very important function and has enormous strengths. Any criticism must be measured against that.

There are some obvious reforms we could make without recourse to constitutional or even legislative change. I would like to put on the record three obvious changes we could make. We should publish a legislative schedule. I know the leaders of each group debate this matter each week and particularly in current times an element of flexibility is needed when emergency legislation comes through. However, we can predict much of the legislation that will be before us in two to three weeks' time, yet we do not tend to get adequate notice. It would improve the quality of debates if we had more time to prepare ourselves for those. I would love to see a legislative timetable prepared and publicly accessible so that not only we, as Senators, could prepare our debates, but also those ordinary members of the public in civil society. For example, those involved in adoption would know that the Adoption Bill would be debated in the Seanad in two particular weeks in March 2009. That would greatly improve public awareness and information about the Seanad and the debates here. It is a very obvious and simple measure that we could implement. I understand that in some sessions the Seanad has given more advanced notice of a timetable. Clearly it would need to be flexible. However, even if we could say that particular Bills were due to be debated in particular weeks it would be of great assistance

Second, like many colleagues, I asked that the Order of Business would be reformed to become more obviously a debate on topical issues of the day. The time could be extended to one hour and perhaps the time of individual speakers could be limited usefully so that each Senator would have more of a chance to contribute.

It might be useful. It would also make it easier to have a topical debate. Yesterday, as we all know, the Order of Business became a discussion about the dreadful events in Northern Ireland at the weekend, which is as it should have been. Yet, we still had to remain within this rather artificial framework of the Order of Business. It would be a great improvement to the perception of the Seanad outside and to our work within were we to say this is a debate on topical issues and to extend the time generally while allowing particular time limits for speakers, including the Leader, if I may say so.

My third proposal for internal reform, before we deal with more general reforms, is with regard to statements on particular issues. I can see there is often great merit and value to those issues but, equally, they sometimes seem rather obscure and it may not be clear, even to Members, why we are debating particular issues at particular times. While we all call for statements on issues, we can sometimes be surprised to see a particular issue on the agenda.

This afternoon's discussion on Seachtain na Gaeilge was obvious because táimíd i Seachtain na Gaeilge, which is fine. However, there is often no rationale apparent to us or the public as to why we have statements. If we gave more advanced notice, it would give a better indication of why we have statements. Perhaps there should be a line or two on the agenda every week explaining why we have statements on a particular topic at a particular time. Where we have statements, given it is sometimes difficult for every speaker to contribute, 15 minutes is too long for individual spokespersons and perhaps an eight or ten minute maximum might be preferable.

Those are some minor points which would improve and enhance the quality of our internal debates. That said, in the 18 months I have been a Member, I have seen the immense strengths of the Seanad. Before I came in, I knew the Upper House served a very valid function. Senator O'Toole pointed out the merits generally of a bicameral system, which are undoubted. The Irish experience has seen some articulate Senators in the past — I am thinking of former Senators such as Mary Robinson and Mary Henry, for example, who used this House as a platform to express radical and progressive views on issues that were not being aired in the other House and probably would not have been aired in public debate otherwise. Those were the sorts of issues that led to legislative reform — I am thinking of issues such as the Bills on contraception that Mary Robinson brought forward in the 1970s and Mary Henry's very valuable contributions on IVF and the need for its regulation, as well as on capacity and wardship, which we are still debating.

A similar point can be made with regard to debate on legislation in the Seanad. Senator O'Toole has got it exactly right. We have much more thoughtful debates, particularly on Committee Stage, because all Members can come in on Committee Stage and this means that those who have individual expertise, knowledge or experience to share on a particular issue can contribute. This is a strength we have over the Dáil committee procedure. For example, I found the Adoption Bill debates this week and last week incredibly informative. They showed the Seanad at its best, teasing out complexities in difficult legislation with many sensitivities, working together with Government and Opposition to try to improve the quality of the adoption process for everyone, and always working in the best interests of the child. That is the Seanad at its best.

Many of the criticisms that are made about Seanad procedures could equally be made about Dáil procedures or committee procedures — I believe we have too many committees. One gets to a point where the criticism becomes too much. One could always say government would be a lot more efficient without opposition, but we must remember this is democracy. As has been said, it is an imperfect system but nobody has come up with anything better. Of course, government might function more efficiently without cumbersome processes of democracy, but that would be a dictatorship. We must bear this in mind and be reasonable in our criticisms.

I absolutely defend the systems and functions of the Seanad. While we should look at our internal procedures for reform, this motion looks at a more substantive type of reform, namely, reforming the structures and the need for greater democracy in the processes by which we elect our Members, which is important. I have had a strong welcome from graduates of different universities to the very narrow proposals that we extend the franchise for the university seats to all third level graduates. I have received e-mails, as I am sure others have also, from graduates of many different universities and institutes of technology — I understand we would have a warm welcome awaiting us at the University of Limerick if we were to sit there. This is a very important reform we need to make. Some 30 years after the constitutional amendment, we need to do this.

Reform of the university seats is only part of the overall picture. The report of former Senator, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, made a very valuable contribution, recommending comprehensive reform of the Seanad as a whole. I fully approve of her proposals that there should be a list proportional representation system for direct election to 26 seats and that higher education should choose six seats, but nobody should have two votes and a graduate would choose which of those two lists to vote for. We would then preserve the indirect elections by councillors.

I do not see the need for the Taoiseach's nominees as this effectively neuters the Seanad. I do not see it as being particularly useful.

My final point is that at this difficult economic time, the proposal of former Senator O'Rourke to extend the numbers in the Seanad to 65 might not be a runner. Overall, however, we need to overhaul our internal system internally and externally. I commend the motion to the House without the amendment.